sign in sign up
<<
Home , Archaeology

Wendy Bustard Archeological Curation in the 21st Century Or, Making Sure the Roof Doesn’t Blow Off

ver the few it has agency accountability was poor, largely due to the become apparent that a crisis in lack of records and guidelines.2 Three years later, American archeology exists.1 36 CFR pt. 79 was finalized. Unfortunately, a Those words were written in decade after its publication, federal agency 1980O in response to a symposium, “The Curation accountability shows only sporadic of Archaeological Collections,” at the 44th improvement.3 Today, some agencies still do not Annual Meeting of the for American have formal policies on curation, making Archaeology (SAA) in Vancouver, British accountability difficult to achieve. Other agen- Columbia, April 1979. Exactly 20 years later, cies, including the Departments of Defense and Verna L. Cowin organized a symposium entitled Interior, have made significant progress in terms “The Crisis in Curation: Problems and of accountability. Solutions” at the 64th annual meeting of the Accountability asks two questions: what do SAA in Philadelphia, April 2000. The speakers in you have and where is it? Problems with answer- this symposium touched on a series of curation ing the first question generally center on the problems: large backlogs of uncataloged collec- backlog: the number of uncataloged objects and tions; extensive collections from recent cultural . Until material is cataloged, we don’t resources (CRM) projects; inade- really have a handle on what we have, and the quate staff; increasing curation fees; substandard numbers can be overwhelming. Ten years ago, and overflowing storage facilities; and the lack of Chaco National Historical Park calcu- awareness in the archeological of just lated its archeological and archival backlog to be how bad things are. The fall 1999 thematic vol- around 1.5 million items. Today, about 54% of ume of on the manage- the backlog has been cataloged. Unfortunately, ment of federal archeological collections included the backlog continues to grow as new collections articles on curation accountability, funding, are accessioned each . accessibility, partnerships, and deaccession poli- Trouble answering the second question usu- cies. It seems that once again a number of people ally arises when we deal with older collections or are thinking about the state of archeological cura- federal agency collections. Often, older collec- tion and, unfortunately, finding many of the tions were divided, traded, or even sold off. For same problems cited in 1980. I recently did an instance, archeological collections from Chaco informal poll of with archeological col- Canyon, excavated in the late-19th and early- lections to learn what their top concerns were. 20th centuries, are now located in Generally, recurring themes regarding archeologi- around the world. Old collections, dispersed cal collections fall into five categories: accountabil- among different institutions, sometimes with ity, accessibility, conservation/preservation, deacces- poor or no documentation, nonetheless can be sion policies, and storage. useful for exhibits and type or comparative col- Accountability lections. As Joan Schneider of the University of In 1990, regulations entitled Curation of California’s Center for Archaeology and Federally Owned and Administered Archeological observes, even with just general Collections (36 CFR pt. 79) were published, provenience information, these old collections partly as a result of a 1980s General Accounting can also be useful for research, if we know what Office audit of the status of federal archeological and where they are.4 Sometimes, unfortunately, collections. The 1987 GAO report found that collections have simply been lost. Old field

10 CRM No 5—2000 school collections are a good example––occasion- Museum, CRM firms often cite a lack of staff to ally languishing, forgotten, in an attic or base- pack collections to repository standards and the ment. Other collections, moved from storage high cost of curation fees as reasons for their fail- room to storage room get lost along the way. ure to comply with state and federal regulations Today, computerized accession and catalog concerning archeological collections.8 records provide us with to track storage Accountability is the responsibility of the location moves and, with cooperation among agency or institution. Archeologists and curators institutions, to intellectually re-unite dispersed must ensure that agencies and institutions collections to facilitate research.5 acknowledge their responsibility to manage col- At the federal level, responsibility to protect lections to professional and regulatory standards. and preserve archeological resources on federal We must also encourage the public to hold us land dates back to the 1906 Act. accountable for our . Agencies and bureaus whose primary mission Accessibility does not include managing cultural resources Accessibility generally refers to whether or (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or not researchers, managers, and the general public U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) typically place can use archeological collections. This in turn most of their cultural collections in local or relates to the question of accountability––if we regional repositories. Since 1906, some of these don’t know what we have and/or where it is, we agencies and bureaus have lost track of their col- cannot make collections available for use. This is lections. Federal compliance with the deadlines not a trivial problem. According to 36 CFR pt. imposed by the 1990 Native American Graves 79, federal collections must be made available for Protection and Act (NAGPRA) has “scientific, educational and religious uses.” The had the beneficial effect of forcing agencies to general public pays for federal collections locate and their collections, and to through taxes and, therefore, is entitled to use make formal arrangements with non-federal them appropriately. The Smithsonian repositories. The publication of 36 CFR pt. 79 in Institution’s creation of a Museum Support the same year as NAGPRA reinforced federal Center was in response to the need to appropri- accountability for archeological collections. The ately care for collections and make them accessi- Department of Defense, through its U.S. Army ble. From 1983 to 1996, the National Museum Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of of moved its archeological and Expertise for the Curation and Management of ethnographic collections to the new facility. Archaeological Collections, has been particularly During the move, inventories were completed, a aggressive and effective in locating its collections, new database system was installed, storage assessing conditions at repositories, and making locations were barcoded by catalog number, and recommendations for long-term The Maxwell curation.6 Museum of The problem of locating Anthropology’s storage ware- collections is not limited to past house for bulk practices. The rise of CRM pro- archeological jects over the last three decades collections. has resulted in large, -docu- Photo courtesy Chaco Culture mented collections. However, we National don’t always know where these Historical Park, collections are. Although a National Park Service. repository agreement is required before a State Officer will grant a permit, there is no way to moni- tor if the , after excava- tion and sometimes years of , actually ends up in the specified repository.7 According to Verna Cowin of the Carnegie

CRM No 5—2000 11 storage was upgraded.9 Researchers can now archeological collections in particular are often query electronic databases and easily locate arti- housed in substandard conditions. facts for study. The Smithsonian Institution’s Increasingly, attention is focusing on curation center is an excellent model, but most of archival collections. Without documentation, us do not have the good fortune to work in such archeological collections are generally not useful well-designed facilities. for research. When documentation exists, it can From a ’s perspective, the lack of be considerable. The Chaco Museum Collection accessibility relates directly to space and staff. has seen an exponential growth in the amount of Staff is necessary to catalog the artifacts. Even field notes, personal papers, photographs, and when you know what you have and where it is, donated as researchers finish projects without staff to retrieve requested items, collec- and/or retire. Preserving these records that are on tions are still not fully accessible for research. non-archival paper is expensive and -con- Overcrowded, unsafe storage conditions also suming. Another archival issue concerns elec- physically hamper a curator’s ability to pull items tronic media. Managing data on computer tape, for researchers. Researchers face other accessibil- diskette, CD-ROM, and zip disk is a challenge. ity challenges. For instance, collections dispersed The media change so quickly that long-term in multiple repositories across the country (or preservation studies are non-existent and would world) make research physically difficult and be largely irrelevant. For now, we must keep old often expensive. Sometimes just finding out what hardware so that we can read data on old media. collections exist is a problem. The result is a lack The temptation is to get rid of obsolete technol- of research use of important but little-known col- ogy as quickly as possible, but we must be careful lections. Joan Schneider cites the example of the not to throw out equipment before salvaging Elizabeth and William Campbell collection at associated data files. The Chaco Museum Joshua Tree National Park, an important histori- Collection is currently engaged in an electronic cal collection about which few outside the local database rescue project: we are converting 1970s- academic community know. The University of 1980s data on old mainframe data tapes to CD- New Mexico’s Chaco field school collections ROM format before the tapes disintegrate and from the 1930s and 1940s are uncataloged and the data are lost. This will not be a long-term information about these important small site solution, however, as technology changes faster assemblages is unavailable to researchers. Other than we can keep up with it. Migrating data files field school collections no doubt suffer the same to new media every five years or so is a worthy fate — forgotten on shelves in university storage goal, but one that may not be realistic, given rooms. As Schneider asks, “What is the purpose other curatorial concerns and crises. National of curating collections if no use is made of curatorial standards for electronic data migration, them?” The American public, who pays for much verification, and preservation would be useful. of this work, would like an answer to that ques- Deaccession Policies tion as well. One way to increase accessibility Archeological in the United would be to create a single, indexed, searchable States dates back to the beginning of the repub- web site with links to all archeological collections lic. Americans of European ancestry shared the in the . continental interest in curiosities from other cul- Conservation/Preservation tures. The founding of the Smithsonian Conservation is another concern. As Karin Institution in 1846 provided both the impetus, Roberts of the National Park Service Midwest via funding, and a national home for the collec- Archeological Center points out, storage facilities tion of antiquities on a large scale. By the late for archeological collections must be appropriate 1800s, institutions vied with each other to for a wide variety of materials, from stone to acquire antiquities for display in museums. The metal to textiles to celluloid.10 Often, storage Antiquities Act of 1906 required that collections conditions are geared toward generic, stable recovered under the Act be deposited in a public materials and fragile specimens may suffer over museum or national repository.11 Over the last the long term. Roberts also observes that while 150 years, a staggering number of artifacts have archeological collections should be accorded the been collected and housed in the Smithsonian same protection as other museum collections, Institution, private museums, universities, federal this is not always the case. In my experience, bulk agency repositories, state and local historical

12 CRM No 5—2000 museums, and in some cases, garages and base- Storage ments. Today, we face the problem of managing “The roof blew off the car wash last week.” these collections and, sometimes, deciding what Not words that normally strike fear in a curator’s we will curate “in perpetuity” and what we will not. heart, unless of course you have archeological col- Culling collections for cost, management, lections stored in the car wash. This actually hap- and research considerations is a touchy subject. pened to a university anthropology museum this However, several curators who responded to my past March. This museum had outgrown its stor- informal poll brought up this problem, and S. age space long ago and was desperate for addi- Terry Childs of the National Park Service tional storage space. Several years ago, the univer- Archeology and Program has sity’s board of regents came up with a temporary argued for the need to incorporate deaccession solution––use an abandoned two-bay car wash policies into collection management plans.12 In for overflow storage. Since it was to be tempo- of decreasing funds for museum support, rary, the university did not renovate the building. increasing curation costs, and lack of space, cura- To stop the roof from leaking, it constructed a tors are looking more closely at what is piled in metal roof above the original roof. This is what the storage rooms. What we could (or should) blew off in a wind and rainstorm. Luckily, this discard, who should make those decisions, and story has a happy ending: a generous private how we justify our decisions are difficult ques- donor has given the university money to con- tions, and should not be made in haste to solve struct an archeological research and curation center. short-term storage problems. While most of us do not have to worry For private museums, is usu- about roofs blowing off, there are few state-of-the ally a policy issue, and these institutions can work art facilities such as the Smithsonian Institution’s with their boards of directors to develop such Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland, policies. However, at the state and federal level and the National Park Service’s new Museum legislative authority is required to dispose of pub- Resource Center in Landover, Maryland. I sus- licly-owned property. Within the federal govern- pect most of us labor in small, overcrowded, ill-lit ment, some federal agencies and bureaus have the storage facilities never designed to hold museum authority to deaccession inappropriate collec- collections. The Chaco Museum Collection is tions, and some do not. For example, the currently housed in six locations: three in the Department of Defense, the Department of park and three on the campus of the University State, and the Smithsonian Institution have deac- of New Mexico in partnership with the Maxwell cessioning authority, but in the Department of Museum of Anthropology. One of our shared the Interior only the National Park Service and facilities is the Maxwell Museum Warehouse, a the Department of the Interior Museum have 16-foot-high warehouse stacked floor to ceiling this legislative authority. The NPS deaccessioning with archeological collections from the authority was granted in 1955 and broadened in Southwest. The Chaco is housed in the 1996, and the NPS museum program has had 1930s stacks of the University of formal guidelines in place for deaccessioning New Mexico’s main . I imagine a great since 1967. However, other bureaus in the many repositories across the country are similar: Department of the Interior do not have general retrofitted spaces with limited or no environmen- legislative authority to deaccession, with the tal controls, security, or fire protection. Most of exception of NAGPRA. This authority is needed. all, repositories are full — packed to the rafters As Nancy Coulam of the Bureau of Reclamation and beyond, every inch of floor space taken up notes, deaccessioning objects with limited or no by piles of boxes. Even the Smithsonian value would be fiscally responsible and in the Institution’s Museum Support Center is now fac- public interest.13 The American Association of ing a scarcity of storage space.14 Archeological Museums (AAM), the American Anthropological collections and their accompanying archival col- Association (AAA), and the SAA could and lections grow steadily––sometimes slowly, some- should work with state and federal agencies to times at an alarming rate. Real estate is expensive, obtain the legislative authority needed to deacces- especially real estate that must be built to strict sion inappropriate archeological collections federal standards for curation and have room to through such mechanisms as transfer, exchange, expand. Not surprisingly, universities, private or donation. museums, and federal agencies are not overly

CRM No 5—2000 13 anxious to undertake expensive pro- our past and preserving them for future genera- jects to build the kinds of facilities required. tions. Professional initiatives and public educa- Not only do many (most?) repositories fail tion are the tools to which we have immediate to meet the standards of 36 CFR pt. 79 for the access. We must use them wisely to find solutions. curation of federal archeological collections, Archeologists also must become more many severe safety and health concerns. involved in curation. The SAA has a newly- Before the Museum Support Center was built, formed Committee on Curation; a good, if curi- the National Museum of Natural History’s ously late, start. However, in a cursory examina- anthropological collections were physically and tion of the Society for American Archaeology’s figuratively stored in the “nation’s attic,” as the recently published Teaching Archaeology, I found Smithsonian Institution is affectionately nick- only one reference to the need for professional, named. In this case, the conceptual charm of an effective curation and .15 overflowing attic was counterbalanced by the There is a strong emphasis on the preservation reality of asbestos contamination. Two of the ethic in this volume, but it focuses on site preser- Chaco Museum Collection storage areas in the vation. Curation does not seem to be part of park are infested with hantavirus-carrying mice. either undergraduate or graduate archeological The 16-foot-high storage shelves in the Maxwell curricula. It is as though archeologists collect Museum Warehouse are a potential OSHA night- things and then the objects disappear into mare. The list could go on. another realm of responsibility. In 1980, Where Do We Go from Here? Alexander Lindsay and Glenna Williams-Dean It seems to me that the pressing issues con- wrote: cerning archeological collections can be charac- It is our opinion that many of the curatorial terized from two different standpoints: policy problems are created and can be solved or and implementation. The policy aspects of ameliorated by archaeologists themselves. The apparent lack of a positive ethic for the preser- accountability and accessibility can and should be vation, care, and use of collections in the dealt with by the museum profession. The imple- training of archaeologists is one cause of the mentation aspects of accountability, accessibility, problem.16 conservation/preservation, and storage require I can personally attest to the fact that some funding. Securing legislative authority for state graduate schools today still do not train archeolo- and federal agencies and bureaus to deaccession gists in the care and use of collections. Ironically, inappropriate collections may require the politi- as Ann Hitchcock of the National Park Service cal assistance of non-governmental entities such has noted, many museum studies programs as the AAM, AAA, and SAA. developed within anthropology programs, such as Discussing the papers presented at the those at the University of Arizona, the University “Crisis in Curation” symposium, Francis P. of Colorado, the University of Denver, and the McManamon, Departmental Consulting University of Washington.17 Archeologist for the Department of the Interior, If archeologists do not become involved in observed that the infrastructure of curation is curation policies and implementation, decisions crucial: facilities and staff. It is this infrastructure will be made by boards of directors, federal and that implements curation. Without an adequate state managers, and administrators in the private and solid infrastructure, there will be no mean- sector. I suspect that most archeologists will not ingful solutions to the problems facing us. be comfortable with the decisions these individu- Unfortunately, the curation infrastructure is als make. It is up to us. If we want to make sure expensive. Facilities that meet the standards of 36 the roof doesn’t blow off, we must all work on CFR pt. 79 are costly to build and operate. solutions to the archeological curation crisis. Professional staff with the necessary expertise ______does not come cheap. Asking Congress, boards of Notes directors, boards of regents, state legislatures, and 1 Andrea Lee Novick, “Symposium on the Curation city governments for more money for curation is of Archaeological Collections,” Curator, 23:1 not easy. We must compete with social programs (1980): 5-6. 2 36 CFR pt. 79, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 177 that directly impact the public welfare. How? We (September 12, 1990): 37625. need to do a better job educating the public 3 Bobbie Ferguson and Myra Giesen, “Accountability about the importance of caring for the objects of in the Management of Federally Associated

14 CRM No 5—2000 Archeological Collections,” Museum Anthropology .11 36 CFR pt. 79, Federal Register Vol 55, No. 177 23:2 (1999): 19-33. (September 12, 1990): 37626. 4 Joan Schneider, personal communication, March 2000. 12 S. Terry Childs, “Contemplating the Future: 5 Donald McVicker, “All the King’s Horses and All Deaccessioning Federal Archaeological Collections,” the King’s Men: Putting Old Collections Together Museum Anthropology 23:2 (1999): 38-45. Again,” paper presented at the 65th Annual 13 Nancy Coulam, personal communication, March Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 2000. April 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 14 Greta Hansen and Catherine Zwiesler Sawdey, “A 6 Kenneth L. Shingleton, Jr., Laura Kozuch, and Moving Experience: Thirteen Years and Two Michael K. Trimble, “The Department of Defense Million Objects Later,” Curator 42:1 (1999): 13-35. National Archaeological Curation Assessment 15 Susan J. Bender, editor, “A Proposal to Guide Project,” paper presented at the 65th Annual Curricular Reform for the Twenty-First Century,” Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, in Teaching Archaeology, edited by Susan J. Bender April 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. and George S. Smith (2000), pages 31-48, Society 7 Martha P. Otto, “CRM Curation in Ohio,” paper for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the 16 Alexander J. Lindsay, Jr. and Glenna Williams- Society for American Archaeology, April 2000, Dean, “Artifacts, Documents, and Data: A New Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Frontier for American Archaeology,” Curator 23:1 8 Verna L. Cowin, “Caring for Collections: A Case (1980): 19-29. Study of Carnegie Museum of Natural History,” 17 Ann Hitchcock, personal communication, May paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the 2000. Society for American Archaeology, April 2000, ______Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Wendy Bustard is Museum Curator for the Chaco Culture 9 James J. Krakker, David J. Rosenthal, and Deborah National Historical Park, whose museum collection is Hull-Walski, “Managing a Scholarly Resource: located on the campus of the University of New Mexico, Archaeological Collections at the National Museum Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was trained as an arche- of Natural History,” Museum Anthropology 23:1 ologist and her research interests have focused on the pre- (1999): 9-18. history of Chaco Canyon. 10 Karin Roberts, personal communication, April 2000

Kathleen T. Byrne Deaccessioning Museum Collections

eaccessioning museum collec- ately destroyed during scientific analysis. Native tions is the process of perma- American materials that meet the criteria of the nently removing them from a Native American Graves Protection and museum’s ownership and cus- Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) may be deacces- tody. DWhen a museum deaccessions an object, sioned as part of a repatriation agreement. the museum no longer has physical custody of Many museums also contain collections the object, and it relinquishes all claims to own- that don’t fit within the museum’s current scope ership. of collections statement. Most museums now use Deaccessioning museum collections runs some form of a scope of collections statement counter to the main purposes of museums, which that defines the types of materials the museum are to acquire and preserve collections for the will collect, based on the mission and purpose of benefit of future generations through , the museum. In earlier years, museums were interpretation, and research. We think of muse- much less systematic in what was collected, ums as collecting objects, not disposing of them. resulting in collections that aren’t relevant to the However, there are several valid reasons for museum. deaccessioning collections. The obvious ones Of course in a perfect world, there would include loss, theft, or destruction from involun- be no need for museums to deaccession collec- tary means, such as flood or fire. There are also tions. All the objects would fit within the cases when an object has lost all value due to museum’s scope of collections, and nothing extensive damage, or when a specimen is deliber- would get damaged or stolen.

CRM No 5—2000 15